DCIT Vs M/s. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (ITAT Mumbai)
Undisputedly, a reading of the assessment order makes it clear that the disputed addition has been made only on the basis of AIR information. It is evident, the Assessing Officer has accepted the fact that the assessee has partly reconciled the AIR information with its books of account. Thus, from the aforesaid facts, it becomes clear that the figure shown in the AIR information do not in reality represent assessee’s income. It is also evident, the Assessing Officer has made the addition simply on the allegation that the assessee failed to reconcile the AIR information with the books of account. However, the facts on record demonstrate that before the Assessing Officer the assessee has made submissions with supporting evidence to the effect that though it has made attempt to obtain confirmations from the concerned parties by issuing letters to them, but, it has failed in its attempt. Further, the assessee has not only filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer asserting that it has not received any such income as contained in the AIR information, but, it has also requested the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry with the concerned parties for eliciting the correct facts. As observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to only one party and, that too, he did not pursue the matter any further even with regard to that party. In respect of the other parties, the Assessing Officer did not conduct any independent enquiry to verify assessee’s claim that it has not received any income as alleged in the AIR information. Even, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned specific instances why the assessee could not reconcile certain entries in the AIR information, reason being, wrong mention of assessee’s PAN. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly reveal that the figure shown in the AIR information in reality do not represent assessee’s income. The judicial precedents cited before us also lay down the proposition that only on the basis of AIR information no addition can be made. In the case before us this exactly is the factual position. The Assessing Officer without making any independent enquiry to ascertain the correct fact has made the addition simply relying upon the AIR information. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition. Grounds raised are dismissed.
